Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:08:22.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The History of Quantum Mechanics as a Decisive Argument Favoring Einstein over Lorentz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

R. M. Nugayev
R. M. Nugayev*
Affiliation:
Kazan State University, USSR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Einstein's papers on relativity, quantum theory, and statistical mechanics were all part of a single research program; the aim was to unify mechanics and electrodynamics. It was this broader program–which eventually split into relativistic physics and quantum mechanics–that superseded Lorentz's theory. The argument of this paper is partly historical and partly methodological. A notion of “crossbred objects“–theoretical objects with contradictory properties which are part of the domain of application of two different research programs–is developed that explains the dynamics of revolutionary theory change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 44 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Einstein, A. (1905a), “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt”, Annalen der Physik 17: 132–48. (Translated in D. Ter Haar, 1967.)Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1905b), “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”, Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1906a), “Zur Theorie der Lichterzeugung und Lichtabsorption”, Annalen der Physik 20: 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1906b), “Über eine methode zur Bestimmung des Verhältnisses der transversalen und longitudinalen Masse des Electrons”, Annalen der Physik 21: 583–86.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1909a), “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des Strahlungsproblems”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 10: 185–93.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1909b), “Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 10: 817–25.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1910), “Principe de relativité et ses conséquences dans la physique moderne”, Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles 29: 5–28, 125–44.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1936), “Physik und Realität”, Franklin Institute Journal 221: 313–47.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1974), “Zahar on Einstein”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1976), “Critique of scientific reason”, in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800–1905, Howson, C. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1961), “The Genesis of the Special Theory of Relativity”, in Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section L, 1959. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1951), “Mr. Pap on Synonymity”, Mind 60: 548–49.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1961), “Are Wave Mechanics and Matrix Mechanics Equivalent Theories?”, in Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section L 1959. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1964), “Contra-Equivalence”, Isis 55: 308–25.Google Scholar
Holton, J. (1969), “Einstein, Michelson and the ‘Crucial’ Experiment”, Isis 60: 133–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeans, J. H. (1905), “On the Partition of energy between matter and aether”, Philosophical Magazine 10: 91.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1969), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1980), “The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.; Heilbron, J. L.; Forman, P. L.; and Lini, A. (1967), Sources for History of Quantum Physics: An Inventory and Report. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, J. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976), “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions”, in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800–1905, Howson, C. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), “Popper on Demarcation and Induction”, in Philosophical Papers, vol. 1: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorentz, H. (1909), The Theory of Electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat. New York: G. F. Stechart and Co.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. (1940), “The Nature of Entailment”, Mind 49: 333–47.Google Scholar
Miller, A. (1974), “On Lorentz' methodology”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1922), Philosophical Studies. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Planck, M. (1906), Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Warmestrahlung. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Podgoretzky, M., and Smorodinsky, J. (1980), “Ob aksiomaticheskoy strukture …”, (“On the Axiomatic Structure of physical theories”,) in Fizicheskaya teorija. (The Physical Theory.) Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1890), Électricité et optique: cours de physiques mathématiques. Paris: G. Carré.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1906), “Sur la dynamique de l'électron”, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 21: 129–76.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1967), Classical Charged Particles: foundations of their theory. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1974), “Einstein versus Lorentz: research programs and the logic of comparative theory evaluation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepin, V. S. (1976), Stanovlenie nauchnoi teorii. (The Rise of Scientific Theory.) Minsk.Google Scholar
Ter Haar, D. (1967), The Old Quantum Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1870), “On the Motion of Electrified Bodies”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 8.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. (1973), “Why did Einstein's programme supersede Lorentz's?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 95–123, 223–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar